Loading ...
Global Do...
News & Politics
4
0
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
E-Government Strategy Governance Framework FY2004 – FY2008 December 2003 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................2 1.1 PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................2 1.2 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................3 2.0 CASE FOR CHANGE ..................................................................................................................................4 2.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................4 2.2 GOVERNANCE CAPABILITY NEEDS..............................................................................................................5 3.0 E-GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE MODEL..........................................................................................8 3.1 LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHANGES.......................................................................8 3.2 PROCESS MANAGEMENT CHANGES ...........................................................................................................12 APPENDIX A – TOOLS AND TEMPLATES APPENDIX A-1 – VISIONING SESSION GUIDE APPENDIX A-2 – BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY TEMPLATE APPENDIX A-3 – PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK APPENDIX A-4 – PROJECT AND SLA STATUS REPORT TEMPLATE Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 1 1.0 Introduction With Interior facing the challenge of using technology to provide citizen-centered, integrated, secure services, the need for effective governance – accountable decision-making and the structures and processes that turn decisions into actions – has never been greater. Governance issues are complex and easy to get wrong, but E-Government success depends on getting them right. Effective E-Governance enables decision-making as well as decision follow-through across three primary components: 1. Leadership: The roles and responsibilities of the organization's appointed officials and senior executive management that shape the organization’s strategic vision, culture, decision-making processes, and plan for action. 2. Organizational Structure: The structure and form of organizational relationships that support decision-making, foster appropriate culture, and build essential skills in order to marshal resources to make things happen. 3. Process Management: The management of how organizations serve their customers and measure success or failure, including leadership and decision-making processes, as well as changes to operational processes required to support new E-Government capabilities. Roles and responsibilities of the senior management that shape strategic vision, culture, decision-making processes, and plans for action Management of activities, including leadership and decision-making processes, performance measurement, and changes to operational processes Structure and form of relationships that support decision- making, foster appropriate culture, and marshal resources to execute the strategy The “Three Pillars” of eGovernment Governance LeadershipOrganizational StructureProcess ManagementeGovernment Success 1.1 Purpose This document describes a new governance framework for managing the lifecycle implementation of E-Government at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The new model builds on the strengths and challenges of the existing governance approach in order to introduce the changes needed for launching Interior’s enterprise-wide E-Government Strategy. The objectives of the new governance model are to build the leadership, organizational structures and process management required to: Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 2 • Increase coordination and collaboration, particularly in identifying and managing cross- cutting initiatives, on E-Government across the enterprise to increase efficiency and enhance service delivery; • Improve two-way communication across program, Bureau, and Departmental lines regarding E-Government; and • Better align Interior’s technology investments to business needs using a portfolio management perspective to analyze tradeoffs and establish investment priorities. 1.2 Methodology The approach to determining Interior’s new E-Government governance model included the following series of steps: 1. Document and assess the current E-Government governance environment; 2. Identify capability needs, in alignment with the E-Government vision; and 3. Define the future E-Government governance model. In order to document the current E-Government governance structure and processes and gather requirements for the new model, a number of interviews and meetings were conducted across the organization. Documenting Interior’s current E-Government leadership, organizational structure, and process management revealed the issue’s complexity and the broad range of individual leaders, groups, and processes already addressing E-Government activities at Interior. The assessment process included both primary research – interviews with managers and staff across the Department and the Bureaus – and secondary research – existing Interior policies and procedures such as the IT Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) Guide and reports such as the Inspector General’s report on Interior’s web presence and GAO’s report on the investment management process. When compiled, the research revealed recurrent themes pointing to both strengths and challenges of the current governance approach. Comparing these strengths and challenges to the E-Government vision articulated in the Department’s new E-Government Strategy yielded a set of clear capability needs that the new governance model must address. Interior’s E-Gov Team, a subcommittee of the Management Initiatives Team comprised of senior business leaders from each Bureau and key Departmental offices, made a number of decisions about these capability needs, including how business leaders will participate in E-Government and about how E-Government activities will be coordinated across program, Bureau, and Department lines. The new governance model emerged from these decisions, which build on the current strengths and tackle the current challenges in order to enable Interior’s strategic E-Government vision. The project team also attended meetings of the Presidential E-Government Initiatives representatives, DOI Web Resources Council, and the Interior Business Architecture Team to ensure the new governance model is aligned with those ongoing efforts. Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 3 2.0 Case for Change 2.1 Background Currently, multiple parties are responsible for E-Government activities at the Departmental level within Interior. As depicted in the “as-is” organizational structure below, three distinct silos exist (from left to right): 1) high-level decision-making bodies comprised of senior business executives; 2) high-level governing bodies relating to information technology management; and 3) groups responsible for strategic planning and Interior’s participation in the government-wide President’s Management Agenda (PMA) E-Government initiatives. This dispersion causes a lack of distinction between different parties’ roles and responsibilities, and leads to unclear ownership of and accountability for E-Government. Further, the disparate decision-making processes reinforce existing communication gaps between the three areas. As a result, communication between Departmental projects can be lacking, and efforts are not united to present a clear enterprise-wide focus. Assistant Sec PMB/CFO MIT MEC ITMC Funding only Office of Acquisition and Property CIO IT Working Groups Geospatial One Stop Recreation .gov PMA eGov Initiative Reps DAS Perf and Mgmt Volunteer .gov Office of PPP eGov Team DAS Budget and Finance Office of Budget NBC 2 reps from ITMC are on the eGov Team IT Portfolio Management Division Bureau IT Review Boards 4 C’s4 C’sHuman CapitalHuman CapitalCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationFacilities & AssetMgmtFacilities & AssetMgmtStrategic Planning Collaboration Secretary of the Interior Collaboration ePayroll Bureau Business Leads Bureau CIOs Bureau Budget Rep/ CFO Existing process/relationship Departmental Office Bureau Representatives Interdepartmental Efforts Informal relationship Collaboration E-Government activities are occurring simultaneously within each Bureau as well, often with what is perceived as inadequate or inconsistent communication between the Department and the Bureaus. This lack of communication occurs in both directions – too few upfront messages from the Department to increase the Bureaus’ awareness and expectations about upcoming changes, and too little direct input from the Bureaus in shaping what those upcoming changes will look like. Similarly, information-sharing between Bureaus about current E-Government capabilities and best practices is ad hoc, which can result in duplicate investments and redundant work. However, there is currently no formal structure to guide Bureaus in working together to develop shared E-Government initiatives, and there is no incentive for a Bureau to take on the additional financial and workload burden to do so. Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 4 Looking broadly across all of Interior’s E-Government activities at both the Department and Bureau levels, business leaders are involved inconsistently in driving investment management. Their absence is particularly apparent at the enterprise level of investment portfolio management. Without this business leadership involvement, aligning investments to established business priorities is becoming increasingly difficult. Business leaders are not involved, except at the very highest levels within the Department, in making difficult decisions about how to invest limited resources across the enterprise in order to elicit the best value for Interior and its customers. The current capital planning process also does not provide a performance measurement process that enables leaders to evaluate initiatives’ progress and make funding allocation decisions based on that progress in order to revive or weed out unsuccessful efforts. 2.2 Governance Capability Needs The E-Government vision articulated by Interior extends the boundaries of how information technology has traditionally been managed. It demands that Interior balance redefining business processes and creating new technology solutions with consistently delivering reliable information and services to its customers. Not only does it compel business leaders to fill an increasingly larger role in setting priorities and making decisions about the Department’s investment portfolio, but it also requires growing coordination across program, Bureau, and Departmental lines. Achieving the Department’s enterprise-wide E-Government strategic goals and objectives will require a blend of insight, planning, collaboration, and commitment at all levels. Based on its current E-Government successes, Interior is already well positioned to deliver successful results. However, effective governance requires building off the current strengths and finding new ways to address the challenges posed in the present governance model. Leadership Needs E-Government leadership already stems from individual business leaders, project managers, information technology policy makers and technology developers across the Department and its Bureaus. Future E-Government success will rely heavily on sustained senior level sponsorship to prioritize and integrate individual efforts from an enterprise perspective. Beyond this direction-setting role, E-Government leadership at Interior fundamentally requires strong communication on many levels – project-to-project, Bureau-to-Bureau, and Department-to- Department. Good communication, organization, and negotiation skills are imperative. The following activities describe actions leaders must take to guide E-Government successfully. Effective leaders of E-Government at Interior must: Display visible, sustained ownership; Establish and maintain proper direction, through implementation of this E-Government Strategy; Highlight success stories and share best practices; Identify E-Government opportunities; Address potential problems, resolve issues, and mitigate risks; Gain commitment and support within the Interior community; Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 5 Assign budget priority and obtain resources; Ensure a set of E-Government guidance and standards for the Department is developed, as appropriate; Coordinate monitoring of E-Government implementation at Interior and prepare reporting to federal regulatory bodies as needed; and Champion Interior’s E-Government efforts externally. Given these leadership activities, it is clear that these qualities do not only need to be exhibited at the senior executive level. As the strategy’s implementation evolves, leaders will be needed at many different levels, from the most junior developer on a project to a senior executive sponsor. In particular, mid-level program managers will serve a critical role in gaining buy-in, building momentum, and managing the complexity of planning, monitoring, and implementing cross- cutting E-Government initiatives. Organizational Structure Needs Interior’s maturing IT management and investment portfolio management models provide a foundation for building a strong governance structure. Effective governance requires building clear relationships between existing IT management organizations, business leaders, and individual project managers at the Bureau, Department, and Federal-wide level. To foster the desire to centralize some E-Government efforts, the governance structure needs to focus heavily on improving and increasing communication between these groups and across all levels. It must provide a consistent structure for participation in direction-setting for E-Government projects, for sharing best practices and lessons learned, and for addressing competing demands on funding and workforce resources. A successful model must include top-down leadership and bottoms-up participation with the ability to collaborate, share information, and manage organizational knowledge. As the Department moves from the strategic planning stage of E-Government into the implementation stage, it is critically important that the governance structure provides the foundation for: Driving business requirements; Defining priorities; and Providing ongoing coordination. Process Management Needs The process management activities that comprise E-Government governance intersect significantly with the activities traditionally conducted through an IT portfolio management program. As Interior’s portfolio management model continues to mature, it needs to address several key areas to enable successful E-Government: • A method for determining Interior’s most important and urgent E-Government needs and establishing them as priorities; • An approach that facilitates communication and collaboration between Bureaus and enables them to partner on shared E-Government solutions; and Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 6 • A means for consistently and accurately measuring the performance of ongoing projects to assess their viability and the benefits they generate. To transition successfully to a new governance model, these E-Government processes must be integrated into existing management processes. Streamlining, rather than burdening, current activities is the goal. This approach means clear responsibilities and accountabilities, with defined handoffs between governing bodies. Finally, and fundamentally, in order to foster the communication that is critical for success, the E-Government governance processes must be transparent. Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 7 3.0 E-Government Governance Model The E-Government governance model seeks to address these capability needs by promoting a collaborative environment with business leaders and technical leaders regularly working together to make decisions across Interior’s investment portfolio. Rather than creating a drastically new organizational and process management structure, the new governance model builds off existing IT and E-Government organizations and the ongoing IT portfolio management process. The new model leverages Inter-Bureau groups to facilitate communication across the organization while also enabling an enterprise-wide view of business priorities, resulting in economies of scale and reduced redundancy. Establishing defined responsibilities and consistent communication between E-Government-related groups is key to the success of this effort. The following E- Government governance structure has been created to support this collaborative environment and ensure E-Government efforts meet Interior’s strategic, business, and technical objectives. Assistant Sec PMB/CFO MIT MEC ITMC Office of Acquisition and Property CIO Geospatial One Stop Recreation .gov DAS Perf and Mgmt Volunteer .gov Office of PPP E-Gov Team DAS Budget and Finance Office of Budget NBC IT Portfolio Management Division Bureau IT Review Boards 4 C’s4 C’sHuman CapitalHuman CapitalCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementCompetitive Sourcing & ProcurementPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationPlanning, Budget, and Financial Mgmt IntegrationFacilities & AssetMgmtFacilities & AssetMgmtStrategic Planning Secretary of the Interior Bureau Business Leads Bureau CIOs Bureau Budget Rep/ CFO Bureau Strategic Planner ePayroll PMA E-Gov Initiative Reps Web Council IBAT Existing process/relationship Departmental Office Bureau Representatives Interdepartmental Efforts New process/relationship Informal relationship Collaboration Subset of Group Departmental IRB IT Working Groups 3.1 Leadership and Organizational Structure Changes Interior’s E-Government leadership structure remains largely unchanged in this governance model, but the model places new demands on both business and technical leaders by defining new roles and increasing levels of collaboration between them. The most significant change is the creation of a Departmental Investment Review Board comprised of business and technical leaders from Interior’s Bureaus and key Departmental offices. The new model also establishes important connections between E-Government governing bodies, including the Department’s primary business and technical management groups and several existing groups directly related to implementing this strategy. Finally, the governance model establishes and strengthens links between Departmental E-Government governance and Bureau governance structures. Each Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 8 group affected by the new governance structure is described below along with an overview of the organizational implications. Management Initiatives Team The Management Initiatives Team (MIT) is comprised of senior level business leaders responsible for overseeing implementation of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) items and Interior’s management improvement initiatives. On an annual basis, the MIT also meets to prioritize investments and present final recommendations to the Management Excellence Council (MEC), the Department’s most senior decision-making body. The MIT executes its responsibilities through a number of subcommittees, one of which is the E-Gov Team, established to support the Administration’s E-Government agenda and address Interior’s unique E-Government needs. Since E-Government activities may impact other PMA items, the MIT serves as a critical coordination point between the E-Gov Team and the other MIT subcommittees. E-Gov Team The E-Gov Team is the driving force for defining and implementing Interior’s E-Government strategy. Composed of business leaders from each Bureau and most Departmental offices, the team is led by a business representative at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level, with deputy leadership positions filled from the Office of the CIO and Performance Management and Budget. An important addition to the membership of the E-Gov Team is a representative from the Office of Budget. The Department’s IT Management Council (ITMC) already brings together technology leaders from each Bureau and Departmental office to make technology decisions for the enterprise. Solidifying the E-Gov Team will create a business-focused complement to the ITMC. By leveraging the existing ITMC representation on the E-Gov Team, the two groups can communicate consistently. It is critical for the E-Gov Team to make informed decisions about how the business priorities of the Department and the Bureaus should shape Interior’s use of technology. Highlights of their responsibilities include: • Defining shared business needs; • Identifying potential gaps and redundancies in implementing strategic goals; • Guiding relevant business process redesign efforts; • Supporting E-Government innovation in service delivery; • Facilitating communication between the Department and Bureaus, and among the Bureaus; • Highlighting relevant best practices and leveraging shared solutions, where appropriate; and • Identifying and removing common barriers to E-Government. Departmental Investment Review Board At quarterly points during the ongoing Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) portfolio management process, the E-Gov Team and the ITMC will formally join to form the Departmental Investment Review Board (IRB). The Departmental IRB will meet annually to review business cases, prioritize initiatives and make investment recommendations to the MIT. In accordance with the CPIC guidelines, the Departmental IRB will meet quarterly to review the status of ongoing projects. The Departmental IRB will evaluate actual results against planned performance metrics, service level agreements, and scope and schedule of the major projects and Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 9 make any subsequent portfolio management decisions. By creating a combined team of business and technical leaders to review the projects together on a quarterly basis, business and technical concerns are addressed simultaneously, keeping the business and technical direction aligned. Highlights of the IRB’s E-Government-related responsibilities include: • Determining the significance and urgency of needs shared across the Department and Bureaus; • Reviewing CPIC business cases; • Making recommendations on viability and prioritization of proposed initiatives; • Preventing duplicate investments and leveraging shared solutions, where appropriate; and • Providing oversight for ongoing E-Government efforts. Bureau Investment Review Boards To strengthen the relationship between Bureau and Departmental budgeting and capital planning, the governance model introduces changes in membership and functions of the Bureau IRBs. Most importantly, each Bureau’s primary E-Gov Team member should serve as an active member on the Bureau IRB. This addition enables regular communication and coordination between the E-Gov Team’s efforts and the individual Bureaus. During the ongoing CPIC process, the E-Gov Team member will be well-informed on his or her Bureau’s investment priorities, and as enterprise-wide priorities are established and opportunities for shared solutions are identified, the member can ensure his or her Bureau’s needs are addressed. Leveraging the Bureau IRBs to integrate their individual E-Government activities with Departmental priorities is the key link between governance at the Departmental level and at the Bureau level. As Interior turns to implementing the E-Government Strategy, Bureau E- Government leaders will be challenged to align their efforts with the direction of the Departmental E-Government strategy while supporting their Bureau’s own unique E- Government needs, which vary widely. Just as the enterprise-wide IRB, E-Gov Team and ITMC oversee and coordinate E-Government efforts across the Department, each Bureau’s IRB should provide the same level of integration across all of that Bureau’s E-Government activities. Ultimately, each Bureau will need to replicate the functions identified in this Departmental Governance Framework to charter its own E-Government governance structure that is tailored to the Bureau’s unique E-Government needs. E-Gov Team Subteams In the E-Government governance structure, the E-Gov Team also oversees three sub-teams: the PMA E-Government Initiatives Representatives Team, the DOI Web Resources Council (DWRC), and the Interior Business Architecture Team (IBAT). Based on the business focus and the enterprise-wide impact of these sub-teams’ responsibilities, the E-Gov Team’s leadership provides a natural location for tying these sub-teams into the overall governance structure. A representative from each sub-team will attend E-Gov Team meetings on a regular basis to provide updates of the team’s efforts, make recommendations as necessary, and report on any items that need further discussion. The PMA E-Government Initiatives Team consists of a representative from each of the federal E-Government initiatives for which Interior is either the managing partner or a participant. Coordination among the presidential E-Government initiatives is complex as more initiatives are Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 10 launched and implemented. The PMA E-Government Initiatives Team meets regularly to review the status of the initiatives, discuss funding needs, and coordinate implementation of new processes and backend systems within Interior that relate to the federal E-Government initiatives. A close relationship between the E-Gov Team and the PMA E-Government Initiatives Team is essential in enabling business leaders to establish priorities and understand the potential impact of the Presidential E-Government initiatives on Interior. The Web Council is an enterprise-wide group focused on improving Interior’s web services and presence. As a sub-team to the E-Gov Team, the Web Council makes recommendations on decisions related to improvements to the content and presentation of Interior’s Web presence. The E-Gov Team will review recommendations from the Web Council and ensure decisions are aligned with Interior’s E-Government strategy. The Interior Business Architecture Team represents the primary business component of the overall Interior Architecture effort. As a sub-team to the E-Gov Team, the IBAT will advise the E-Gov Team of potential opportunities and recommendations for business process transformation identified throughout the architecture definition process, and then receive guidance from the E-Gov Team regarding how cross-Bureau business process can and should be improved. The IBAT will work closely with other Enterprise Architecture and IT working groups managed from the Office of the CIO. Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 11 3.2 Process Management Changes Changing the leadership and organizational structure of E-Government at Interior is not enough to successfully implement this strategy; the changes must be reinforced with new or enhanced management processes. The key activities required for implementation span the full life cycle of portfolio management, from heavy upfront strategic planning needs to ongoing oversight and monitoring activities. They also require varying levels of involvement from Department and Bureau organizational groups, based on the activity and each investment’s stage in the CPIC life cycle. Different decision-making groups will be involved in different capacities for each key activity along the dimensions of being responsible, accountable, informed and consulted. In this context, the following definitions apply: Responsible: The organization or individual primarily tasked with accomplishing the activity Accountable: The organization or individual ultimately answerable for performance Consulted: Organizations or individuals who are engaged in dialogue to improve the outcome of the activity Informed: Organizations or individuals who are kept advised of the status of an activity Activity Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed Define Strategy E-Gov Team E-Gov Team/ MIT/MEC MIT/ MEC/ Bureaus Relevant E- Gov Bodies Identify Gaps and Redundancies in Accomplishing Strategy E-Gov Team E-Gov Team MEC/ MIT/ Bureaus ITMC Determine E-Government Opportunities and Priorities Departmental IRB E-Gov Team MIT/ Bureaus MIT Subcommittees Identify Appropriate Project Sponsors and Integrated Project Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team Bureaus/ ITMC Create Business Cases Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Bureaus Departmental IRB Approve and Prioritize Major Investments Departmental IRB MIT/MEC Office of Budget/MIT Subcommittees Bureau IRBs/Relevant E-Gov Bodies Develop, Implement, and Operate Initiatives Project Team Project Sponsor Departmental IRB/ IT Working Groups Evaluate Progress Against Performance Measures and MOUs/SLAs Departmental IRB MIT/MEC Project Sponsor Establish Consistent Communication E-Gov Team/ Bureau E-Gov Representatives/ Bureau CIOs E-Gov Team MIT ITMC, Bureaus, MIT Subcommittees Refine Strategy E-Gov Team E-Gov Team/ MIT/ MEC MIT/ MEC/ Bureaus Relevant E- Gov Bodies Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 12 Annual E-Government Management Schedule E-Government management activities span the full fiscal year, and many of the activities fall into a repeatable annual process. The E-Gov Team is scheduled to meet monthly, except during the quarterly Departmental IRB meeting periods. At the beginning of the fiscal year, the E-Gov Team will identify current gaps and redundancies in how the IT portfolio is meeting the E- Government strategic goals, objectives and strategies. After those gaps and redundancies have been validated, the Departmental IRB will determine and prioritize E-Government opportunities during an annual visioning session as input to the Pre-Select business cases. Subsequently in the May Departmental IRB meeting, the Select business cases will be reviewed and prioritized with a recommendation prepared for the MIT. The designated project managers are responsible for preparing both the Pre-Select and Select business cases. During the months when an IRB meeting is not scheduled, the E-Gov Team will meet to address their responsibilities for decision-making regarding Presidential E-Government initiatives and other enterprise E-Government-related activities. On a quarterly basis, the E-Gov Team will review the progress of the business architecture and resolve any outstanding issues. Semiannually or as needed, the E-Gov Team will review the status of the DOI Web Resources Council’s activities. The following diagram depicts each month’s activities based on the fiscal year schedule Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Identify Gaps and Redundancies etermine and prioritize E-Gov opportunities repare Pre-Select Business Cases (FY 06) rioritize Pre-Select Business Cases (FY 06) repare and Refine Select Bus. Cases (FY 06) rioritize Select Business Cases and ommend to MIT/ MEC (FY 06) nduct Quarterly Review of Ongoing Projects eview Federal E-Gov Initiatives Updates and oordinate other enterprise-wide efforts iew IBAT Updates eview Web Resources Council Updates D P P P P Rec Co R C Rev R E-Gov Team Project Mgrs IRB Project Mgrs IRB IRB IRB IRB IRB E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team E-Gov Team Respond to OMB Passback (FY 05) IRB IRB Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 13 Activity Overview and Description The following section presents a more in-depth review of each activity with the purpose, responsible party, tools, input, and output, as well as process steps involved in completing the activity. DEFINE STRATEGY Activity Overview Purpose • Create an enterprise-wide strategic roadmap for E-Government at Interior • Define the context of the story that Interior can tell regarding E- Government implementation Responsible Party • E-Gov Team is responsible overall • E-Gov Team Staff member(s) conduct research, analysis, and synthesis Tools • Not applicable Input • Administration and Secretarial Priorities • Departmental Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plans • Presidential E-Government Initiatives • Interior Enterprise Architecture • Federal Enterprise Architecture • Interior’s Existing Portfolio • Bureau Strategic Plans • DOI Interviews, Customer Interviews • IT Strategic Plan • Other Departmental E-Government Plans • E-Government Application Baseline • E-Government Readiness Assessment Output • Department of the Interior E-Government Strategy Timing • Every five years, in conjunction with Departmental strategic planning processes Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Thoroughly review all relevant input materials such as the Department’s Strategic Plan, IT Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plans, and internal and external reports. E-Gov Team Staff Conduct interviews with the Management Excellence Council (MEC), key management executives, program staff and information technology employees to understand Departmental priorities, business drivers and high-level technology capabilities E-Gov Team Staff Conduct external research from customers about their needs and challenges (if possible) E-Gov Team Staff, Strategic Planning Staff Outline core business processes and understand current E-Government capabilities to address them, beginning an E-Government baseline E-Gov Team Staff, IBAT Compile research into an E-Government Readiness Assessment to understand the major opportunities and challenges for the Department E-Gov Team Staff Brainstorm what E-Government means to the Department and its stakeholders and the desired result of executing E-Government in relation to the Department and its stakeholders. E-Gov Team Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 14 Review examples of E-Government mission, vision and strategic plans from other organizations in the public and private sector E-Gov Team Staff Develop a straw E-Government mission and vision statement for comment and feedback E-Gov Team Finalize and develop a consensus on one mission and one vision statement to which each Bureau and office feel connected and represented E-Gov Team Develop straw goals and objectives that respond to the challenges and are connected to the business E-Gov Team Staff Vet the revised goals and objectives until consensus is reached, including the formal approval E-Gov Team Identified required E-Government strategies to fulfill the new goals and objectives. E-Gov Team Create performance measurement approach E-Gov Team Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 15 IDENTIFY GAPS AND REDUNDANCIES IN ACCOMPLISHING STRATEGY Activity Overview Purpose • To identify gaps and redundancies in how E-Government initiatives fulfill Interiors E-Government strategies and federal lines of business Responsible Party • Designated member of E-Government Team and IBAT prepares • E-Government Team reviews Tools • E-Government capabilities mapping template Input • Interior E-Government Strategy goals, objectives, and strategies • Interior Enterprise Architecture lines of business • OMB Federal lines of business • Interior Exhibit 300 submissions • List of additional E-Government initiatives Output • List of gaps and redundancies in Interior’s various initiatives Timing • Annually for formal documentation and discussion • Informal identification on an ongoing basis Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Update the mapping template with the latest OMB/Interior lines of business from the Enterprise Architecture E-Gov Team Staff supported by IBAT Gather a comprehensive collection of current initiative documentation (OMB 300s, CPIC documents, or other format) E-Gov Team Staff Map each of the initiatives to the Interior E-Government strategies it serves E-Gov Team Staff Map each of the initiatives to the OMB lines of business that it serves E-Gov Team Staff and IBAT Identify E-Government strategies and OMB lines of business for which insufficient initiatives are dedicated (gaps) E-Gov Team Staff Identify E-Government strategies and OMB lines of business for which multiple systems/initiatives appear to perform the same function (potential redundancies) E-Gov Team Staff List these areas of gaps and potential redundancies for further analysis and prioritization for action E-Gov Team Staff E-Gov Team reviews the results for action, clarification, etc. E-Gov Team Share results of analysis with ITMC E-Gov Team Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 16 DETERMINE E-GOVERNMENT OPPORTUNITIES Activity Overview Purpose • Identify E-Government opportunities to fill gaps or to consolidate redundant efforts Responsible Party • E-Gov Team/ Departmental IRB Tools • Visioning session guide Input • Gap/redundancy analysis • OMB Exhibit 300 input • Analysis/discussions with project sponsor and project manager Output • Identification of initiatives worthy of pre-select business cases Timing • Annually, as part of the formal CPIC process • Continuously through the year, as ideas are brought to the Team Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Conduct preliminary investigation of identified potential overlaps to determine whether joint solutions might be feasible (including high- level analysis of business process overlaps, relative data similarities, customers affected, existing migration plans) E-Gov Team Staff, with E-Gov Team members from relevant Bureaus Conduct preliminary investigation of best practices regarding identified gaps to determine potential new solutions E-Gov Team Staff, with E-Gov Team members from relevant Bureaus Conduct visioning session (especially, as part of annual process) to identify which potential solutions may have merit to comprehensively address the business issue (addressing both gaps and overlaps) E-Gov Team/ Departmental IRB Document high-potential ideas, recommending that a pre-select business case be conducted to further assess potential. E-Gov Team/ Departmental IRB Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 17 IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE PROJECT SPONSORS AND INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM Activity Overview Purpose • Determine the project sponsors for developing the business case and implementing solution Responsible Party • E-Gov Team Tools • Not applicable Input • Description of project to be considered for pre-select business case • Input from Bureaus/offices regarding relative capability/experience with this type of initiative Output • Recommendation to MIT for pre-select business case and project sponsor Timing • As initiatives are identified Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Identify key qualities of the initiative under consideration: • Core mission function • Key business process • Location of similar solutions in Interior • Special skill requirements E-Gov Team Staff Identify all Bureaus and offices which would be likely to participate in the solution (identifying major or minor roles) E-Gov Team Staff, in consultation with Bureau E- Gov representatives Conduct discussion at E-Gov team meeting regarding options for sponsorship among major participants E-Gov Team Assign sponsor by consensus E-Gov Team Identify/assign preliminary key roles for additional participants to support business case development E-Gov Team Recommend sponsor and initiative to the MIT for development of a pre- select business case E-Gov Team Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 18 CREATE BUSINESS CASES Activity Overview Purpose • A business case for a prospective Federal IT investment is created in the form of an Exhibit 300 and supplemented by documents such as a cost/benefit analysis, a security plan, a project plan, etc., as delineated in Interior’s CPIC Guide. These documents provide the information needed for management to make informed decisions about an investment’s future value and viability. Responsible Party • Project Sponsor Tools • Exhibit 300 format and guidance from OMB • Interior’s CPIC Guide • Business Case Summary Template Input • Gap or redundancy identification and opportunity validation processes Output • Completed Exhibit 300 with required supplemental information, according to appropriate CPIC phase Timing • Annual CPIC cycle – high level business case is completed for Pre-Select phase; full business case is first completed for Select phase Process Steps Overview For Pre-Select Phase: Responsible Party Complete a mission needs statement and concept documentation Project Sponsor Complete required portions of Exhibit 300, according to CPIC guidance Project Sponsor For Select Phase and Beyond: Responsible Party Describe the opportunity, by identifying the as-is environment and the desired end state Project Sponsor Define why the opportunity is important to Interior Project Sponsor Determine how the initiative will be developed and managed Project Sponsor Define the alternative solutions to addressing the opportunity Project Sponsor Perform cost and benefit assessments of the alternatives Project Sponsor Analyze the alternatives and select the most appropriate option Project Sponsor Outline a project schedule and performance goals Project Sponsor Complete the OMB Exhibit 300 and all other business case documentation, as required by Interior’s current CPIC guidance Project Sponsor Summarize the business case using a one-page summary template Project Sponsor Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 19 APPROVE AND PRIORITIZE MAJOR INVESTMENTS Activity Overview Purpose • To review the Department’s prospective and current major IT investments and recommend approval/disapproval and prioritization of investments from a portfolio perspective in accordance with annual budget submission Responsible Party • IT Portfolio Management Office • E-Gov Team staff • Departmental IRB • MIT/MEC Tools • Interior’s CPIC Guide • Prioritization Framework • Business Case Summary Template Input • Mission needs statement • Concept documentation • Business case summaries • Exhibit 300s • Supplemental documentation, as require by CPIC guidance Output • Approved and prioritized IT investment portfolio aligned with annual budget submission Timing • Annual CPIC cycle Process Steps Overview For Pre-Select Phase: Responsible Party Review documentation for all Pre-Select phase investments as well as most recent passback guidance from OMB IT Portfolio Management Office, E-Gov Team staff, Departmental IRB Evaluate whether each prospective investment merits proceeding to the full business case in the Select phase, based on high-level strategic, financial, and operational criteria, such as: • Displays direct fulfillment of DOI Strategic Plan and E-Government Strategy • Addresses legislative requirements and/or Secretarial priorities • Enables new or improved service to DOI’s customers or partners • Leverages existing investments • Exhibits potential for cost savings or revenue generation • Incorporates transfer solution from Interior Bureau, government agency, or private sector • Demonstrates potential applicability to other Interior Bureaus/offices Departmental IRB Rank, by consensus, the recommended approvals for Pre-Select investments Departmental IRB Review prioritized recommendations from the Departmental IRB MIT Finalize recommended approval/disapproval of investments, and adjust recommended priorities, as needed MIT/MEC Communicate final decisions to Departmental IRB MIT For Select Phase and Beyond: Responsible Party Review and score draft Exhibit 300s for all major IT investments according to established DOI CPIC and OMB criteria IT Portfolio Management Office Assess a benefit score, a cost score, and a risk level for each cross-cutting E-Gov Team Staff Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 20 major investment according to the information reviewed by the IT Portfolio Management Office Use the cost and benefit scores to plot the passing cross-cutting major investments on a graph, and use the risk levels to flag high-risk investments on the graph E-Gov Team Staff Assess the Quadrant I (high-benefit/low-cost) and Quadrant II (high- benefit/high cost) investments against the E-Government strategic objectives E-Gov Team Staff For E-Government strategic objectives not represented in these quadrants, determine whether there are relevant investments in Quadrant IV (low- benefit/low cost) E-Gov Team Staff If relevant investments exist in Quadrant IV, determine whether they merit elevating to ensure E-Government strategic objectives are addressed thoroughly Departmental IRB Rank, by consensus, the top 10 cross-cutting major investments in Quadrants I and II Departmental IRB Review prioritized recommendations from the Departmental IRB MIT Finalize recommended approval/disapproval of investments, and adjust recommended priorities, as needed MIT/MEC Communicate final decisions to Departmental IRB MIT Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 21 DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND OPERATE INITIATVES Activity Overview Purpose • This activity represents the large volume of effort after an initiative is funded – developing, implementing and operating an E-Government Solution. The E-Government team is not heavily involved in the day-to-day program management, so the processes and tools defined here are limited to those with E-Government Team and CPIC implications. • The E-Gov Team will help to monitor and enforce Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) among multiple parties in the solution Responsible Party • Project Sponsor and Project Team Tools • SLA or MOU examples and templates Input • Recommendations from the E-Gov Team regarding roles and responsibilities among parties • Business Case descriptions of the responsibilities of the integrated project team Output • SLAs or MOUs Timing • Prior to commencing work in development Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Project sponsor meets with all component parties to clarify roles and responsibilities of the integrated project team Project Sponsor Project sponsor drafts service level agreements to document mutual responsibilities for the development and operation of the initiative Project Sponsor If needed, E-Government team assists in facilitating and negotiating agreements Project Sponsor, E-Gov Team SLAs and MOUs are retained on file by the Project Sponsor, partner Bureaus, and the E-Gov Team for assessment during quarterly reviews Project Sponsor Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 22 EVALUATE PROGRESS AGAINST PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND MOUs/SLAs Activity Overview Purpose • To measure, assess and make decisions regarding the progress and effectiveness of the E-Government initiatives on a quarterly and annual basis Responsible Party • Project teams • Bureau representatives • E-Gov Team Staff and IT Portfolio Management Office • Departmental IRB, MIT, and MEC Tools • Project status reporting template • Service-Level Agreement (SLA) status report Input • Project status from project teams • SLA status from project teams and partner Bureaus • Performance measures as defined in business cases • E-Government strategy Output • Snap-shot of how Interior’s overall IT portfolio is performing • Specific actions to improve the performance of certain ongoing E- Government projects Timing • Quarterly evaluation of project and SLA performance • Annual reevaluation of metrics used in the templates Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Establish and maintain project costs, schedule, benefits and risks, and technical baselines Project Manager Maintain current project costs, schedule, technical, and general status information Project Manager Assess project progress against performance measures Project Sponsor, Project Manager, and IPT Prepare quarterly/milestone control review documents Project Manager Evaluate quarterly/milestone control review documents Project Sponsor Review project status report and assess programs E-Gov Team Staff and IT Portfolio Management Office Create IT portfolio snap-shot based on program assessment E-Gov Team Staff and IT Portfolio Management Office Review project status report and recommend appropriate action Departmental IRB Make final control review decisions MIT Work with Project Manager to implement decisions E-Gov Team Staff, IT Portfolio Management Office, and Project Sponsor Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 23 ESTABLISH CONSISTENT COMMUNICATION Activity Overview Purpose • To proactively deliver open, consistent, and timely communications about E-Government and endorse two-way communication between the E-Gov Team and its Subteams, Department and Bureaus, E-Gov Team and the ITMC, and the E-Gov Team and other MIT subcommittees Responsible Party • Departmental IRB • E-Government Team • Subteams of the E-Government Team • Bureaus • ITMC Tools • Not applicable Input • Annual E-Government Management Schedule • Key messages Output • Consistent communication across various groups involved with E- Government Timing • Regularly based on E-Government related meetings • At times when feedback or information sharing is necessary Establish Consistent Communication with Subteams of the E-Gov Team Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Establish regular meeting schedule in team charter Subteams of E-Gov Team Identify representative to attend E-Gov Team meeting Chair of E-Gov Team Subteam Prior to regular E-Gov Team meeting, send request to be placed on E-Gov Team meeting agenda to E-Gov Team staff as needed Chair of E-Gov Team Subteam Report the status of team’s efforts, make recommendations as necessary, and any items that need further discussion and decision making Chair of E-Gov Team Subteam Share minutes from the E-Gov Team’s meetings with Subteam members Chair of E-Gov Team Subteam Discuss outcome of E-Gov Team meetings with Subteam members Subteams of E-Gov Team Take appropriate action based on E-Gov Team’s decisions and leadership Subteams of E-Gov Team Establish Consistent Communication with Bureaus Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party After each E-Gov Team meeting, forward meeting minutes along with comments/concerns to respective Bureau leaders E-Gov Team Representative Discuss outcome of E-Gov Team meetings and evaluate implications with Bureau leaders through available communication channels (emails, staff meetings, etc) E-Gov Team Representative and Bureau Leaders Formulate recommendations to E-Gov Team based on Bureau’s needs E-Gov Team Representative and Bureau Leaders Attend E-Gov Team meetings and express respective Bureau’s perspective and voice concerns as necessary E-Gov Team Members Consider Bureau’s perspective and take appropriate action as necessary E-Gov Team Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 24 Establish Consistent Communication with the ITMC Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Attend E-Gov Team meetings and ITMC meetings ITMC representatives on the E-Gov Team Provide status update of ITMC activities to the E-Gov Team ITMC representatives on the E-Gov Team Discuss ITMC activities as they relate to E-Government activities E-Gov Team Forward E-Gov Team meeting minutes to ITMC members ITMC representatives on the E-Gov Team Coordinate quarterly and annual CPIC review meetings between E-Gov Team and ITMC E-Gov Team Staff Establish Consistent Communication with Other MIT Subcommittees Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Consider impact of E-Government activities to other MIT subcommittees E-Gov Team Identify issues that need coordination with other MIT subcommittees E-Gov Team Communicate with other MIT subcommittee chairs, items that need coordination E-Gov Team chair Attend other MIT subcommittee meetings as necessary to provide updates and coordinate E-Government activities E-Gov Team chair Communicate activities or decisions made by other MIT subcommittees that impact the E-Gov Team at regular E-Gov Team meetings E-Gov Team chair Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 25 REFINE STRATEGY Refine Strategy Activity Overview Purpose • Ensure E-Government Strategy is still relevant, is aligned to the Departmental Strategic Plan, and addresses the high-priority areas for the Department Responsible Party • E-Gov Team Tools • Not Applicable Input • Departmental Strategic Plan • Existing Departmental E-Government Strategy • Results of E-Government program level performance metrics • Review and comments from Bureaus, strategic planning group, MIT, and MEC Output • Department of the Interior E-Government Strategy Update Timing • Annually in conjunction with Departmental budget process/strategic planning process Refine Strategy Process Steps Overview Process Steps Responsible Party Assess overall E-Government accomplishments against high-level performance metrics E-Gov Team Staff Share implementation lessons learned and best practices between projects and across Bureaus and the Department E-Gov Team Staff, in consultation with E-Gov sponsors and project managers Review annual performance and key lessons learned Departmental IRB Identify potential changes in business needs and priorities E-Gov Team, MIT, MEC in consultation with Bureaus Review each of the goals, objectives, and strategies and assess continued relevance, management focus and technical feasibility E-Gov Team Revise strategies as business needs and technology advance E-Gov Team and E-Gov Team Staff Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework 26 U.S. Department of the Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework Appendix A-1 Visioning Session Guide 2 E-Government Strategic Visioning What is E-Government Strategic Visioning? What is Strategic Visioning? • A collective, structured approach to consider solutions for the future. • A technique for generating creativity and new business opportunities. • A structured methodology to think about ways to use technology to meet the needs identified by an organization’s leadership, its customers and partners. • A comprehensive approach to aligning future and current opportunities to the organization’s goals and objectives for E-Government. 3 E-Government Strategic Visioning How can DOI vision E-Government opportunities? • Interior can organize its business and technology leadership, through the Departmental IRB, to facilitate a Department-wide visioning session on an annual basis. The session should be a free-flowing discussion between all attendees. • The visioning session should focus on generating a list of potential solutions to address how the Department can enhance services for citizens and increase efficiency through technology, as articulated in the E-Government Strategic Framework. Particular attention should be paid to filling gaps identified and addressing redundancies identified in the E-Government capabilities mapping tool. • While the Departmental visioning session should include a cross section of Bureau and administrative offices, individual sessions can be held at the Bureau level or office for items to “bubble-up” from the program managers, staff and technology groups. 4 E-Government Strategic Visioning How can DOI structure a productive E-Government visioning session? Visioning Session Agenda 1. Presentation of the Department’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives 2. Overview of the Department’s key issues and priorities for the future (Secretarial direction, interviews, management reports, etc.) 3. Discussion about key stakeholder needs and expectations, i.e. customers, partners, employees, and volunteers 4. Highlights of current and planned E-Government initiatives at Interior, including gaps and redundancies in how these initiatives map to Interior’s E-Government Strategic Framework 5. Prioritization of strategies in the Department’s E-Government Strategic Framework 6. Brainstorming exercise on new opportunities to meet the identified strategies in order to address the highest priority business needs 5 E-Government Strategic Visioning How can DOI spur positive energy, creative thinking, and openness to new ideas? Potential Visioning Session Ground Rules 9 No stupid ideas 9 Think big, start small, scale fast 9 No impediments 9 Keep things moving 9 All participate 9 Think outside of the box – be creative 9 Enterprise approach 9 Customer perspective 6 E-Government Strategic Visioning How should participants think about implementing E-Government strategies? Suggestions for Visioning “Wish List” of Solutions • Improvements in the direction, focus and delivery of existing programs • New capabilities to respond to future challenges or imminent threats to fulfilling mission • Cost reduction opportunities to save money, processing time, or staff resources • Consolidation or integration of redundant applications to deliver one E- Government solution • Removing functions that will no longer be required in the future or applicable to the Department’s or Bureau’s business models • Leveraging best practices within Bureaus or other government and/or private sector solutions Business Case Summary: Template – Date Governance Framework Appendix A-2 Department of the Interior 1 Current OMB Phase: Planning Acquisition Steady-State ycle Mixed Life-C Initial Concept Project Name Sponsoring Bureau(s)/Office(s): Participating Bureau(s)/Office(s): Value Proposition: • Strategic: o • Financial: o • Operational: o eGovernment Strategic Objective (s): Current Capability (As-Is Overview): • Planned Capability (To-Be Overview): • Cost-Benefit Summary: Dollars (000’s) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Total Benefits Total Costs ROI Net Present Value High-Level Timeline & Milestones: • Risks and Dependencies: • U.S. Department of the Interior E-Government Strategy Governance Framework Appendix A-3 Portfolio Management Prioritization Framework 2 To implement its eGovernment strategy, Interior must carefully evaluate and prioritize its major investment opportunities using a portfolio approach. How can eGovernment capabilities be applied to best carry out Interior’s mission? Which investments will provide the greatest value (benefit vs. cost)? Which investments are “must-have” high- visibility projects? What mix of investments will best fulfill Interior’s eGovernment Strategic Plan? What mix of investments will use Interior’s funding and staff resources most effectively? In addition to addressing Clinger-Cohen, OMB and GAO requirements, a structured portfolio management prioritization tool provides a consistent, objective means of guiding critical decisions, such as: 3 Managing a portfolio of investments requires careful consideration of all initiatives against standard evaluation criteria. Evaluation Criteria Sources The President’s Management Agenda, “Expanding Electronic Government” component which charges agencies with advancing eGovernment strategies by supporting projects that offer performance gains across agency boundaries. The eGovernment Act of 2002, which establishes a new Office of Electronic Government and assigns responsibility for improving online access to information and services to agencies; The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Federal agencies to provide options for the public to transact electronically with them by October 2003; The Government Accounting Office’s (GAO’s) Information Technology Investment Management Framework (ITIM), which provides guidance to Federal agencies on building mature IT investment management capabilities. The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) annual budget process, which requires agencies to submit Exhibit 300 business cases for IT investments; and A set of widely recognized best practices that accompanies eGovernment/ eCommerce implementations in both the public and the private sector. 4 The criteria used in this prioritization framework fall into three related categories for scoring prospective and current initiatives. In the suggested prioritization framework, initiatives will be assigned a score in each of the following key areas: Benefit Cost Risk 5 Initiatives’ benefits should be scored based on financial and non-financial benefits, in tangible and intangible forms. Benefit Scoring Benefit Examples Scoring Criteria Financial (Tangible) Financial (Intangible) Non-financial (Tangible) Non-financial (Intangible) • Revenue increases • True cost savings • Cost avoidances • Value of employee labor savings • Value of savings for partner organizations •Expected savings that can only be grossly estimated • Measurable business pprocess improvements •Reduction in reporting burden on the public and/or employees? •High volume of public users/respondents and/or high frequency of use • Improved customer and/or employee satisfaction •Addresses legislation, GAO weaknesses, OMB guidelines or IG findings 5) Very High Revenue Increase/Cost Savings > $100 million; Project will result in dramatic improvement in a key mission area 4) High Revenue Increase/Cost Savings between $100M and $60M; Project will result in noteworthy mission area improvement, or dramatic improvement in non-mission area 3) Medium Revenue Increases/Cost Savings between $60M and $35M; Project will result in significant improvement 2) Low Revenue Increases/Cost Savings between $35M and $10M; Project will result in minor improvement 1) Very Low Revenue Increases/Cost Savings <$10M; Project will provide negligible improvement 6 Similarly, initiatives should be evaluated and scored on financial and non-financial costs. Cost Scoring Cost Examples Scoring Criteria Financial (Tangible) Financial (Intangible) Non-financial (Tangible) Non-financial (Intangible) • Revenue decreases • Increased expenditures (lifecycle) • Costs for additional technology components to support project (i.e. security and records management) •Value of DOI employee labor efforts • Additional costs to partner organizations • Potential additional costs that can only be grossly estimated • Impairments to business processes • Impairments in cycle times, mission performance or other criteria •Lowered customer and/or employee satisfaction • Failure to meet and/or address legislative priorities, GAO material weaknesses, OMB guidelines and or/ IG findings 5) Very High Costs > $100 million; Dramatic decrease in a key mission area 4) High Costs between $100M and $60M; Noteworthy mission area decrease, or dramatic decrease in non-mission area 3) Medium Costs between $60M and $35M; Significant decrease 2) Low Costs between $35M and $10M; Minor decrease 1) Very Low Costs <$10M; No/ negligible decrease 7 In addition to scoring costs and benefits, risks must be assessed and factored into the prioritization process. Risk Types Key Questions Criteria Skills and Complexity Technology Cost Sensitivity Privacy & Security Are the right people in the right place, with the right skills, at the right time? Do electronic approaches and solutions unify and simplify systems development and information and data collection efforts? Are costs minimized, as well as appropriately accounted for, controlled and managed throughout the lifecycle of the project? Have security safeguards and performance been maximized to protect the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of system assets? Red – Complex undertaking with little DOI experience and little outside expertise available; Largely unproven technology & unsupported and/or technology not aligned with DOI architecture; Cost estimates include significant unknown or uncontrollable factors; Use of unproven technology or process changes raises significant concerns about system security or privacy of personal information. Yellow – Complex undertaking requiring significant management attention and external support; Technology that is gaining general acceptance, though history of use may not be long and/or technology that does not leverage existing DOI IT investments; Costs relatively well defined, and contract mechanisms in place to limit overall costs; Privacy and security are a concern, but proven processes and technology will mitigate risk. Green – Common task for DOI personnel or contractors; Universally accepted, reliable solutions aligned with existing/proposed DOI IT investments; Costs very unlikely to increase; Investment unlikely to negatively affect privacy or security. Risk Assessment 8 Scoring placement on the benefit/cost graph provides a comparative overview of initiative value. Initiatives with a red risk level should be flagged. Benefit/ Cost Comparison COST BENEFIT Low Benefit/ High Cost Low Benefit/ Low Cost High Benefit/ High Cost High Benefit/ Low Cost I II III IV 9 Initiatives in Quadrants I and II should be examined to determine whether they collectively address all of Interior’s eGovernment strategic objectives. E-Government at the Department of the Interior enhances services for citizens and increases efficiency by using technology to improve business processes. DOI E-Government Mission DOI E-Government Vision Technology for citizen-centered, integrated, secure services. E-Government Goal #3 Recreation 1.2 Sustain Biological Communities 1.3 Protect Cultural and Natural Heritage Resources 2.2 Water and Generate Hydropower 4.4 Quality Communities for Tribes and Alaska Natives 3.2 Provide for Fair Value Guiding Principles E-Government Goal #4 Serving Communities 4.2 Advance Knowledge Through Scientific Leadership 4.3 Fulfill Indian Fiduciary Trust Responsibilities 4.5 Increase the Economic Self Sufficiency Of Insular Areas 5.4 Performance Measurement and Decision-Making E-Government Goal #5 Management Support 5.2 Financial Management 5.3 Physical Assets and Fleet Management 5.5 Information Management and Workflow 5.6 Geospatial Information Management 6.4 Technical Infrastructure 6.2 web Presence 6.3 Privacy and Security E-Government Goal #2 Resource Use E-Government Goal #1 Resource Protection 1.1 Improve the Health of Watersheds, Landscapes, and Marine Resources 5.1 Strategic Human Capital 6.1 Governance and Program Management E-Government Goal #6 Organizational E-Government Capabilities 2.1 Manage Resource Use 3.1 Provide for a Quality Recreation Experience 4.1 Protect Lives, Resources, and Property E-Government Governance Model 10 If any eGovernment objectives are not addressed in Quadrants I and II, initiatives in Quadrant IV should assessed for possible elevation to fill this gap. General Prioritization Guidelines Quadrant I “High Benefit/ Low Cost” ¾ Initiatives should be highly targeted Quadrant II “High Benefit/ High Cost” ¾ Initiatives may need to be evaluated Quadrant III “Low Benefit/ High Cost” ¾ Initiatives should be deferred Quadrant IV “Low Benefit/ Low Cost” ¾ Initiatives may be targeted as quick wins Additionally, all flagged “red” risk initiatives should be evaluated carefully. Value should always outweigh risk. The eGov Team could request additional work to plan improved risk mitigation strategies. Highest Priorities Ranked Project Status Report Template – Date Governance Framework Appendix A-4 Project Status Report Project Name: Lead Bureau: Point of Contact: Category Score Justification/ Comments Green Criteria Yellow Criteria Red Criteria Finance Green • Project cost less than 10% above budget • Project cost 10- 30% above budget • Project cost greater than 30% above budget Schedule Red • Project is less than 10% behind schedule • Project is 10- 30% behind schedule • Project is more than 30% behind schedule Participation Yellow • Sufficient participation from all required organizations • Some organizations not sufficiently participating • Specific, key organizations not sufficiently participating • Majority of organizations overall not sufficiently participating Performance Green • 90% or more of customers satisfied with the system • 90% or more of internal system users satisfied with the system • 95% or more of system Mission and Business Results met or exceeded • No Mission or Business Results lacking by more than 5% • 75-90% of customers satisfied with the system • 75-90% of internal system users satisfied with the system • 90-95% of system Mission and Business Results met or exceeded • Any Mission or Business Result lacking by 5% - 10% • Fewer than 75% of customers satisfied with the system • Fewer than 75% of internal system users satisfied with the system • Less than 90% of system Mission and Business Results met or exceeded • Any Mission or Business Results lacking by more than 10% Risks Green • All high- probability and high-impact risks have been tracked and a mitigation strategy identified • 95% of high- probability and high-impact risks have been tracked and a mitigation strategy identified • Less than 95% of high- probability and high-impact risks have been tracked and a mitigation strategy identified Department of the Interior 1 Project Status Report Template – Date Governance Framework Appendix A-4 Service-Level Agreement Status Report Service-Level Agreement: Service Providing Bureau: Point of Contact: Category Score Justification/ Comments Green Criteria Yellow Criteria Red Criteria Availability Green • System up-time at SLA requirement or better • System up-time deviates from SLA by 5% or less • System up-time deviates from SLA by more than 5% User Support Red • Help desk response time at SLA requirement or better • Help desk response time deviates from SLA by 5% or less • Help desk response time deviates from SLA by more than 5% Functionality Yellow • All functionality required by SLA is delivered • 95% or more of the functionality required by the SLA is delivered • Less than 95% of the functionality required by the SLA is delivered Customer (Partner) Satisfaction Green • Customers generally pleased with service provider • Most customers pleased with service provider, but notable exceptions exist • Large variation in customer satisfaction with service provider, or • Most customers less than pleased with service provider Partner Bureau Comments (Not to exceed 2 lines per Bureau) Bureau 1 Bureau 2 Bureau 3 Bureau 4 Department of the Interior 2
